# Political correctness gone too far (shocking, right?)



## departuresong (Feb 18, 2010)

Found this on another forum. Thought I'd share.


> Motherfuckers.
> I was curious why that hovercraft guy on the Orbitz commercial doesn't say "the Hernad-ezz-es" anymore.
> I thought maybe I imagined the whole thing.
> So I googled it.
> ...


----------



## #1 bro (Feb 18, 2010)

i've seen a few ads accused of being racist that actually are shockingly insensitive (e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70pyE505nsk ), but this is just silly.


----------



## Blastoise Fortooate (Feb 18, 2010)

But I _loved_ that part of the commercial....


----------



## octobr (Feb 18, 2010)

I prefer the so-called PC version. It still sounds really awkward and stumbly and he sounds so proud of himself for getting it right. :B


----------



## Aisling (Feb 18, 2010)

What if the people with the last name "James" and "Jones" were typically a minority, instead of the people whose last name is "Hernandez"? Would their mispronunciation in a commercial suddenly become offensive? Or what if Hernandez ended in "s", since the guy placed the emphasis on "that don't end in z"? :v


This kind of reminds me of another commercial I haven't seen in a long time...

Anybody remember that Starburst commercial where the dude eats a starburst and says, "It's like a fiesta in my mouth", and then you see a tiny mariachi band inside the guy's mouth, and then suddenly the scene becomes all intense and dramatic as the mariachis are crushed between the dude's teeth and washed down his throat by saliva?


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ (Feb 18, 2010)

Getting offended at the ad is silly, however I lost empathy for the author of the article at the part where they reveal their frequent use of the word 'breasts-ess-ses'.


----------



## Dannichu (Feb 18, 2010)

Alraunne said:


> What if the people with the last name "James" and "Jones" were typically a minority, instead of the people whose last name is "Hernandez"? Would their mispronunciation in a commercial suddenly become offensive?


Yes. Picking on minorities _is_ offensive. There isn't a long history of social stigma against the name "Jones", but if there were, it would become offensive.

Also, just because _you_ don't find it offensive doesn't mean it isn't. I'm not out to curtail anyone's freedom of speech; go ahead and make all the comments-that-could-be-offensive you want, but expect to be called out on it.


----------



## Murkrow (Feb 18, 2010)

Is it true that there was a Halifax ad here in the UK where Howard mentions that his surname is 'Brown' and that part got cut out because people complained that it was racist even though it's his real name?


----------



## Tarvos (Feb 18, 2010)

your heritage is someone put penis into vagina now shut up


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ (Feb 19, 2010)

Dannichu said:


> Yes. Picking on minorities _is_ offensive. There isn't a long history of social stigma against the name "Jones", but if there were, it would become offensive.
> 
> Also, just because _you_ don't find it offensive doesn't mean it isn't. I'm not out to curtail anyone's freedom of speech; go ahead and make all the comments-that-could-be-offensive you want, but expect to be called out on it.


I don't think they're picking on minorities though, are they? Hernandez is just... a hard to pluralize name :v it also happens to be Hispanic but if minorities were never included in commercials it wouldn't be nice either.
They could have chosen Jones or whatever but Hernandez is just a pretty common surname in the US these days I guess.


----------



## goldenquagsire (Feb 19, 2010)

Watershed said:


> your heritage is someone put penis into vagina now shut up


meh your "heritage" is what you make of it. i don't feel particularly northern despite half my family living there since before living memory.



> Wasn't there a Halifax ad here in the UK where Howard mentions that his surname is 'Brown' and that part got cut out because people complained that it was racist even though it's his real name?


yeah I'm gonna be sceptical here. I'm very distrusting of 'PC gone mad' stories since half the time they're utter bullshit or taken out of context.


----------



## Wargle (Feb 19, 2010)

I have trouble pluralizing Hernandez and I say Hernandanzes..es..ses and no one ever calls me out.


----------



## Shiny Grimer (Feb 19, 2010)

Vladimir Putin's LJ said:


> I don't think they're picking on minorities though, are they? Hernandez is just... a hard to pluralize name :v it also happens to be Hispanic but if minorities were never included in commercials it wouldn't be nice either.


It'd be nice if minorities could be included in a way that doesn't mean mocking them. Americans make a huge fucking deal out of pronouncing any name that's not "John Smith" and there are cases where employers have asked employees to change their names because they are apparently "too difficult". Let's not even get into the fact that Hispanic applicants are more likely to be rejected on the basis of name alone despite qualifications. This ad plays on the idea that "lol hispanic names are weird and hard to pronounce" and I can see why somebody would take issue with that.


----------



## Dannichu (Feb 19, 2010)

^ Exactly this. Like GQ said, nearly all "PC gone mad" examples are completely taken out of context. 
A commercial or television show or political statement doesn't exist in a vacuum, and things that people get het up about might well sound ridiculous by themselves, but when the only Asian characters on TV are background IT workers, or every fictional lesbian ends up dead, or every time a Hispanic name is mentioned, it's in the context of "haha, isn't this name hilarious?", it has massive sociological ramifications that cannot be seen if you only look at (and dismiss) isolated examples.


----------



## Karkat Vantas (Feb 19, 2010)

Hernandez is the 29th most common surname in the US, so yeah.

Who the hell could be offended by that?


----------



## #1 bro (Feb 19, 2010)

i'm guessing that the only reason they went with "hernandez" over "jones" is because hernandez is just a funnier word. i don't think the intent was racist (the couple didn't even look latino!)


----------



## Shiny Grimer (Feb 19, 2010)

Zeta Reticuli said:


> i don't think the intent was racist (the couple didn't even look latino!)


Something doesn't have to have racist intentions for it to be racist.

Also, what does "looking latino" mean? That couple could easily be latino. There are some pretty white latino/hispanic people out there. I am Hispanic and I have been mistaken for an American, an Englishwoman, an Irish person, and a Russian person. Nobody ever thinks that I am Hispanic (to the point that they think I'm joking with them when I tell them where I'm from). 



> Hernandez is the 29th most common surname in the US, so yeah.
> 
> Who the hell could be offended by that?


Guess who it's common for? Hint: Hispanic people! While there are non-Hispanic Americans out there that have last names like Hernandez and Rodriguez, they're not the majority.

Also, I'm pretty sure all the "foreigners with funny names" who have suddenly had their names changed because they're "too hard" would take issue with their names being poked at.


----------



## Tarvos (Feb 19, 2010)

if your name takes more than a minute to pronounce it is a pain in the ass for an employer

my last name is a pain too i am probably changing it upon marriage


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax (Feb 19, 2010)

... said:


> It'd be nice if minorities could be included in a way that doesn't mean mocking them. Americans make a huge fucking deal out of pronouncing any name that's not "John Smith" and there are cases where employers have asked employees to change their names because they are apparently "too difficult". Let's not even get into the fact that Hispanic applicants are more likely to be rejected on the basis of name alone despite qualifications. This ad plays on the idea that "lol hispanic names are weird and hard to pronounce" and I can see why somebody would take issue with that.





Dannichu said:


> ^ Exactly this. Like GQ said, nearly all "PC gone mad" examples are completely taken out of context.
> A commercial or television show or political statement doesn't exist in a vacuum, and things that people get het up about might well sound ridiculous by themselves, but when the only Asian characters on TV are background IT workers, or every fictional lesbian ends up dead, or every time a Hispanic name is mentioned, it's in the context of "haha, isn't this name hilarious?", it has massive sociological ramifications that cannot be seen if you only look at (and dismiss) isolated examples.





... said:


> Guess who it's common for? Hint: Hispanic people! While there are non-Hispanic Americans out there that have last names like Hernandez and Rodriguez, they're not the majority.
> 
> Also, I'm pretty sure all the "foreigners with funny names" who have suddenly had their names changed because they're "too hard" would take issue with their names being poked at.


The ad isn't even saying "haha, this name is funny", its saying "this name is hard to pluralise, the guy's inability to do so is funny". It's not making fun of the name at all, it's making fun of the guy's inability to pronounce it. Names like Hernandez _are_ difficult to pluralise.

No one here is saying that it's okay to insult or marginalise minorities. What we're saying is that this ad isn't insulting or marginalising minorities. The ad isn't saying "haha, the Hernandezes are funny Hispanics because their name is hard to pronounce", it's saying "haha, the guy can't pluralise Hernandez". Ye're blowing things way out of proportion. You've gone from "having trouble pluralising a name" to "all minorites get treated shit in TV" and "people get treated racistly because of their names".

There's also the guy saying that apparently it's okay to make fun of the name Jones but not the name Hernandez. That's what's really PC gone mad. Apparently, you can make fun of names belonging to majorities, but not minorities. _Even though the name in question is the 29th most common surname in the US._ Saying it's okay to make fun of the majority is just as bigoted as saying it's okay to make fun of the minority. It's the whole thing with whites not being allowed to call black people "the n word" on TV but black people being allowed to call white people "cracka" or whatever (which has happened plenty of times) all over again. If you're racist against the majority, you're still racist and a Hispanic person putting their name on a pedestal and saying it can't be involved in a joke about names that are difficult to pluralise while "white" names like Jones can is just as bigoted as the inverse.

As an atheist, I'm a minority, especially in Ireland. Now, if someone made an ad completely mocking my beliefs, I'd probably be offended. But if someone made an ad with someone who can't pronounce or pluralise the word "atheist" (I know several people who can't do either), why should I be offended? They're making fun of the guy who can't pronounce it, not atheists. The reason this is a case of PC gone mad is because people basically got offended that someone found their name hard to pronounce. There wasn't even a negative connotation attached to this. The guy just didn't pronounce the name right.


----------



## Shiny Grimer (Feb 19, 2010)

Watershed said:


> if your name takes more than a minute to pronounce it is a pain in the ass for an employer


Because 'Martín' is such a difficult name to pronounce, right? And "Hernandez"?



> The ad isn't even saying "haha, this name is funny", its saying "this name is hard to pluralise, the guy's inability to do so is funny". It's not making fun of the name at all, it's making fun of the guy's inability to pronounce it. Names like Hernandez are difficult to pluralise.


And you think that it's a coincidence they happened to pick a Hispanic name, which have been mocked by Americans for a while?



> There's also the guy saying that apparently it's okay to make fun of the name Jones but not the name Hernandez. That's what's really PC gone mad. Apparently, you can make fun of names belonging to majorities, but not minorities.


Uh, not really? Majorities are the ones in power. People named 'Jones' have not been discriminated against on the basis of their names. People named 'Hernandez' have (and of course, it's considered a 'funny' and 'difficult to pronounce' name). Making fun of the name 'Hernandez' reinforces the concept that it's okay to make fun of people named 'Hernandez' (and guess what most Hernandezes are?) while making fun of the name 'Jones'... doesn't.



> Even though the name in question is the 29th most common surname in the US.


This is because there are a lot of Hispanic people in the US, not because white Americans like the name and have accepted it.



> Saying it's okay to make fun of the majority is just as bigoted as saying it's okay to make fun of the minority. It's the whole thing with whites not being allowed to call black people "the n word" on TV but black people being allowed to call white people "cracka" or whatever (which has happened plenty of times) all over again.


It's prejudiced, yes, but you honestly can't compare 'nigger' to 'cracker'. Nigger has a long history of oppression and pain and inhumanity. Cracker does not have the emotional baggage that nigger has. Nobody has used cracker to oppress anybody else. _That doesn't make using 'cracker' okay,_ but it makes it a completely different case.



> If you're racist against the majority, you're still racist


Racism is described in academia as prejudice with power. Being prejudiced against the majority thus cannot be called racist.



> and a Hispanic person putting their name on a pedestal and saying it can't be involved in a joke about names that are difficult to pluralise while "white" names like Jones can is just as bigoted as the inverse.


Please tell me where people named Jones are being forced to change their names because they're "funny" or "unpronouncable". Please tell me when people named Jones are refused jobs.

Also, can you honestly tell me that video would have been the same if it were "Oh look, it's the Smiths...eses" or "It's the Jones...es...es"? It would have been completely forgettable and nobody would consider it funny because although Jones and Smith are hard to pluralize, they are considered "normal" names. "Hernandez" is considered funny because it's Hispanic.



> As an atheist, I'm a minority, especially in Ireland. Now, if someone made an ad completely mocking my beliefs, I'd probably be offended. But if someone made an ad with someone who can't pronounce or pluralise the word "atheist" (I know several people who can't do either), why should I be offended?


Have people mispronouncing the word "atheist" been used to make fun of atheists and oppress atheists? I'm an atheist, too, and as far as I'm aware the word "atheist" hasn't been used to attack atheists. Or you know, deny them jobs.


----------



## #1 bro (Feb 20, 2010)

... said:


> And you think that it's a coincidence they happened to pick a Hispanic name, which have been mocked by Americans for a while?


probably



> People named 'Hernandez' have (and of course, it's considered a 'funny' and 'difficult to pronounce' name). Making fun of the name 'Hernandez' reinforces the concept that it's okay to make fun of people named 'Hernandez' (and guess what most Hernandezes are?) while making fun of the name 'Jones'... doesn't.





> "Hernandez" is considered funny because it's Hispanic.


no... hernandez is funnier because it sounds funnier... "jones" just doesn't have the same ring to it. people in advertising are all about the subtle timing and emphasis of punchlines and hernandez just sounds better. at least to me. 


i honestly cannot believe you are offended by this ad. there is clearly no racism involved


----------



## Diz (Feb 20, 2010)

> Please tell me where people named Jones are being forced to change their names because they're "funny" or "unpronouncable". Please tell me when people named Jones are refused jobs.


Wait, where have people been forced to change their names?



> Let's not even get into the fact that Hispanic applicants are more likely to be rejected on the basis of name alone despite qualifications.


Ever hear of Reverse Discrimination? Its' pretty much the same as racism, except it is focused toward the majority rather than a minority. An example would be a college choosing a minority, to be diverse and non-discriminatory,  over somebody with higher qualifications who also happened to be in the majority

I understand that people need to be respectful, but the press and the public in general need to understand the meaning behind words, rather than the words themselves. The guy in the commercial wasn't evilly cackling about how he was going to try and insult an entire  group of people. He was probably poking fun at his on inability to pronounce the plural of Hernandez.

I frankly didn't even notice that part of the commercial until it was pointed out here.


----------



## Blastoise Fortooate (Feb 20, 2010)

> Wait, where have people been forced to change their names?


Ellis Island/southern border equivalent, I'd assume.


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ (Feb 20, 2010)

I'm on the 'no this is not discrimination' part of the fence but whoever talked about 'reverse racism' can get the hell out. There's no such thing.


----------



## Shiny Grimer (Feb 20, 2010)

Zeta Reticuli said:


> probably


That's like saying it's a coincidence that the black dude always dies first in a movie.





> no... hernandez is funnier because it sounds funnier... "jones" just doesn't have the same ring to it. people in advertising are all about the subtle timing and emphasis of punchlines and hernandez just sounds better. at least to me.


As previously mentioned, Hernandez is the 29th most common surname in the US so it's not like it's some weird name like "Jingleheimerschmidt". I don't think Hernandez is a funny name, and I'm pretty sure my other friends wouldn't consider it funny, too, because to them this is as normal as a name gets.




> i honestly cannot believe you are offended by this ad. there is clearly no racism involved


Please re-read my first post. I am not saying that this is a racist ad; I am arguing that side because "PC gone too far" stories as, as goldenquagsire said, either taken out of context or complete and utter bullshit.



> Wait, where have people been forced to change their names?


Here. 
There are also examples where people with Hispanic names are less likely to get jobs.
Have another one. This one is mostly about foreign names in general.



> Ever hear of Reverse Discrimination? Its' pretty much the same as racism, except it is focused toward the majority rather than a minority. An example would be a college choosing a minority, to be diverse and non-discriminatory, over somebody with higher qualifications who also happened to be in the majority


Affirmative action is a whole other issue here.
Considering that most colleges are still white, I'd say white people have nothing to worry about. If you want to debate the merits and disadvantages of AA, we could take it to "Serious Business".



> I understand that people need to be respectful, but the press and the public in general need to understand the meaning behind words, rather than the words themselves. The guy in the commercial wasn't evilly cackling about how he was going to try and insult an entire group of people. He was probably poking fun at his on inability to pronounce the plural of Hernandez.


How about the other way around? Why not try to think "Gee, let me try and sympathize with this man for a moment. How might this ad have offended him?" I honestly found nothing objectionable about this ad at first, but thinking about it I thought that perhaps the choice of "Hernandez" was chosen perhaps not because "it's a funny name" but because "it's a funny foreign name" (and once again, Hernandez isn't really a funny name; I hear it everyday and I find it normal). Once again, consider the history in this country of making foreigners with 'funny' names change their names to something 'normal'. Consider how that's happening to Hispanic people today and perhaps you'll understand this guy's complaint. You don't have to agree with him (I'm not sure I agree with him) but at least understand why he may feel upset about this.


----------



## #1 bro (Feb 20, 2010)

... said:


> That's like saying it's a coincidence that the black dude always dies first in a movie.


it probably is?? just because the characters played by black actors are more likely to get killed by the plot... i doubt a bunch of movie executives are sitting around saying "well, we really hate black people, but we need to put them in our movies... let's make sure they all die"


----------



## Dannichu (Feb 20, 2010)

> it probably is?? just because the characters played by black actors are more likely to get killed by the plot... i doubt a bunch of movie executives are sitting around saying "well, we really hate black people, but we need to put them in our movies... let's make sure they all die"


Okay, I'm reposting this in case you missed it:



> A commercial or television show or political statement doesn't exist in a vacuum, and things that people get het up about might well sound ridiculous by themselves, but when the only Asian characters on TV are background IT workers, or every fictional lesbian ends up dead, or every time a Hispanic name is mentioned, it's in the context of "haha, isn't this name hilarious?", it has massive sociological ramifications that cannot be seen if you only look at (and dismiss) isolated examples.


Whether or not somebody actually does think "I hate black people, let's kill my black fictional characters off!" is completely irrelevant  in this case. The only things that matter, are a) the fact the black people _are_ killed off, and b) the effect seeing this (and not in a single case, but _over and over again_) has on the viewers.

Often, these prejudices in the media have two effects:

Firstly, that the Main Character, who doesn't get killed (in 99% of cases a middle-class, able-bodied, cisgendered, young, straight, white male), has a happy ending and, hey, gets all the chicks! Is the ideal, the hero and something to aspire to. People who are like the Main Character (also known as the Target Audience) can relate to him, and are pleased at his role within the film. 
More importantly, the glamorous film/TV/advert representations reinforce his position as the most highly valued person within society, as anyone who does not fit any of those traits (if they're black, female, disabled, transgender, etc.) is not only likely to be discriminated against every day within society, but said discrimination has been around for as long as society itself.

Secondly, that the characters who _do_ get killed off or exist only to push the main character's plot forward (the black guy who gets killed, the female Love Interest who gives him something to fight for, the hispanic guy who may appear briefly doing some kind of menial job?) are somehow less important than the Main Character. Minorities who see how they are represented within TV/films/adverts/etc., are constantly told, whether they are aware of/care about it or not, that their place is _less than_ that of the Main Character. 

A black side-character being killed off halfway through the film while the Main Character gets to have a happy ending isn't some random act of god, it's a calculated desicion made by the writer/director. Whether or not they hold any racist (or other -ist) views is neither here nor there; the fact that they are happy to kill off a minority character and keep the Main Character with all the traits listed above alive through to the end is sending a message to the viewers, and they should be aware of it.

If one more person says "Hernandez sounds funny" I'm actually going to hit something.



> whoever talked about 'reverse racism' can get the hell out. There's no such thing.


Thaaaaank you. I am truly sick of how, whenever a female/black/hispanic/disabled/other minority person gets a promotion (something they've probably had to work ten times harder than the non-minorities to get), everyone screams "OMG reverse discrimination!" because they couldn't have possibly gotten the promotion through their own merit.


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax (Feb 20, 2010)

... said:


> And you think that it's a coincidence they happened to pick a Hispanic name, which have been mocked by Americans for a while?


Yes, I do actually. They just picked the name that produced the best comedic effect. "Hernandez...es...es" sounds funnier imo than "Jones..es...es" but I think "McClements...es...es" would be just as funny as "Hernandez...es...es". The amount of syllables in a name _can_ make or break a joke. I'd say it's more a case of "white" American names not having enough syllables than anything else.



... said:


> Uh, not really? Majorities are the ones in power. People named 'Jones' have not been discriminated against on the basis of their names. People named 'Hernandez' have (and of course, it's considered a 'funny' and 'difficult to pronounce' name). Making fun of the name 'Hernandez' reinforces the concept that it's okay to make fun of people named 'Hernandez' (and guess what most Hernandezes are?) while making fun of the name 'Jones'... doesn't.


But they're _not_ making fun of the name "Hernandez". And I don't consider it a "funny" or "difficult to pronounce" name. You can't just assume everyone who sees the ad is gonna say "haha, that name is funny", you have no basis for that claim.



... said:


> This is because there are a lot of Hispanic people in the US, not because white Americans like the name and have accepted it.


Prove it. Prove all your claims about the evil racist white Americans.



... said:


> It's prejudiced, yes, but you honestly can't compare 'nigger' to 'cracker'. Nigger has a long history of oppression and pain and inhumanity. Cracker does not have the emotional baggage that nigger has. Nobody has used cracker to oppress anybody else. _That doesn't make using 'cracker' okay,_ but it makes it a completely different case.


That's a complete double standard. One racial slur is worse than another? How does putting one social group up on a pedestal promote racial equality?



... said:


> Racism is described in academia as prejudice with power. Being prejudiced against the majority thus cannot be called racist.


That's institutional racism. And argue semantics all you want, putting your own race up on a pedestal is still racial supremacy, whether or not your a minority.



... said:


> Please tell me where people named Jones are being forced to change their names because they're "funny" or "unpronouncable". Please tell me when people named Jones are refused jobs.


Okay, so shit happens to people called "Hernandez". Why does that make it okay to put the name "Hernandez" up on a pedestal, with a barbed wire fence and a sign saying "Do not involve in jokes about names which people find difficult to pronounce."



... said:


> Also, can you honestly tell me that video would have been the same if it were "Oh look, it's the Smiths...eses" or "It's the Jones...es...es"? It would have been completely forgettable and nobody would consider it funny because although Jones and Smith are hard to pluralize, they are considered "normal" names. "Hernandez" is considered funny because it's Hispanic.


Like I said, I think it's the number of syllables. Beats and other components of comedic timing can make or break a joke. "McClements" to me would have been as funny as "Hernandez".



... said:


> Have people mispronouncing the word "atheist" been used to make fun of atheists and oppress atheists? I'm an atheist, too, and as far as I'm aware the word "atheist" hasn't been used to attack atheists. Or you know, deny them jobs.


But just because people called "Hernandez" have been discriminated on because of their names, it doesn't mean that they can demand that they're name never be used in jokes.



... said:


> That's like saying it's a coincidence that the black dude always dies first in a movie.


Prove it's not.



... said:


> As previously mentioned, Hernandez is the 29th most common surname in the US so it's not like it's some weird name like "Jingleheimerschmidt". I don't think Hernandez is a funny name, and I'm pretty sure my other friends wouldn't consider it funny, too, because to them this is as normal as a name gets.


Right, so what you're saying is that you and your friends don't find Hernandez to be a funny name. That's good for you. Some people might find the name funny, in much the same way I find the name "Prenderville" funny. How does this impact on whether or not one can use the name in a joke about a delivery guy who can't pluralise the surname of his clients?



... said:


> Please re-read my first post. I am not saying that this is a racist ad; I am arguing that side because "PC gone too far" stories as, as goldenquagsire said, either taken out of context or complete and utter bullshit.


This is PC going too far. This is political-correctness allowing someone to put their name on a golden pedestal because of their race.



... said:


> How about the other way around? Why not try to think "Gee, let me try and sympathize with this man for a moment. How might this ad have offended him?" I honestly found nothing objectionable about this ad at first, but thinking about it I thought that perhaps the choice of "Hernandez" was chosen perhaps not because "it's a funny name" but because "it's a funny foreign name" (and once again, Hernandez isn't really a funny name; I hear it everyday and I find it normal). Once again, consider the history in this country of making foreigners with 'funny' names change their names to something 'normal'. Consider how that's happening to Hispanic people today and perhaps you'll understand this guy's complaint. You don't have to agree with him (I'm not sure I agree with him) but at least understand why he may feel upset about this.


I understand why he's objecting. I think his reasons are a load of shit and he's putting his heritage on top of an unassailable pedestal, above all others. Sure, people were and still probably are discriminated on based on their race or their names or whatever but it doesn't promote racial equality to say that jokes can't be made involving said races or names.



Dannichu said:


> Whether or not somebody actually does think "I hate black people, let's kill my black fictional characters off!" is completely irrelevant  in this case. The only things that matter, are a) the fact the black people _are_ killed off, and b) the effect seeing this (and not in a single case, but _over and over again_) has on the viewers.
> 
> Often, these prejudices in the media have two effects:
> 
> ...


Your pulling your statistics out of your ass. I can think of plenty of movies where the black guy doesn't die first. Only on Friday the 13th movie features the black guy dying first. In Night of the Living Dead and both the original and 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead, the black guy is the last to die. In John Carpenter's The Thing, the last character to die on camera is a black guy and one black guy and one white guy survive long enough to freeze to death. In Predator 2, the protagonist is black and survives, while his white and Hispanic colleagues are killed. The black guy survives in Pitch Black.

I'm not saying that the black guy dying first wasn't a frequent event in older films but it's been getting increasingly uncommon since the 90s to the point that most instances of it in modern film are either parodies or subversions. tvtropes lists it as a Dead Horse Trope; I'm inclined to agree.



... said:


> If one more person says "Hernandez sounds funny" I'm actually going to hit something.


God forbid anyone should find an ethnic name funny.



... said:


> Thaaaaank you. I am truly sick of how, whenever a female/black/hispanic/disabled/other minority person gets a promotion (something they've probably had to work ten times harder than the non-minorities to get), everyone screams "OMG reverse discrimination!" because they couldn't have possibly gotten the promotion through their own merit.


Right, because some people claim that a minority gets a promotion for being a minority when they didn't, it means that minorities are never given preferential treatment just for being minorities. Makes perfect sense.


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax (Feb 20, 2010)

Accursed doublepost.


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ (Feb 21, 2010)

I personally chose to be in a minority for all the social benefits it brings c:


----------



## Shiny Grimer (Feb 21, 2010)

> But they're _not_ making fun of the name "Hernandez". And I don't consider it a "funny" or "difficult to pronounce" name. You can't just assume everyone who sees the ad is gonna say "haha, that name is funny", you have no basis for that claim.


What part of "things happen in context" do you not understand? US Americans  make fun of Hispanic names all the time. Even if they're not aware that a Hispanic person is there. Even if they don't consider themselves racist and would never think of discriminating against someone on the basis of their name.



> Prove it. Prove all your claims about the evil racist white Americans.


I never said white US Americans are intentionally racist.
Also, I live here. I hear all the snide comments made by white US Americans about how funny Hispanic names are, the comments about how stupid it is that they should have to speak Spanish for a job in *surprise* an area with predominantly Spanish speaking people, how Hispanics "get all the jobs because they speak Spanish". I _live_ this.



> That's a complete double standard. One racial slur is worse than another? How does putting one social group up on a pedestal promote racial equality?


Equality does not mean symmetry. The racial slur "nigger" has had centuries of bad connotations. Racial slurs against white people do not have that same history. They don't have the same emotional or sociological impact as "nigger". "Nigger" has been used to oppress, whereas "cracker" and "honky" are used by the oppressed group as a sort of backlash.  There are white US Americans that have never heard of the terms "cracker" and "honky". Try finding a black US American that doesn't know what nigger means.

Now, I'm not saying that "cracker" and "honky" can't be hurtful words; I think racial slurs referring to anybody are absolutely horrible. However, there is no denying that some words hurt more than other and "nigger" is one of those extremely hurtful words.



> That's institutional racism. And argue semantics all you want, putting your own race up on a pedestal is still racial supremacy, whether or not your a minority.


If your race is the one in power and it's oppressing another race, then that can be called racism.
I'm saying that in this commercial, the usage of the name "Hernandez" served as a free pass for making fun of the name Hernandez.



> Okay, so shit happens to people called "Hernandez". Why does that make it okay to put the name "Hernandez" up on a pedestal, with a barbed wire fence and a sign saying "Do not involve in jokes about names which people find difficult to pronounce."


Because when you continue to joke about the name "Hernandez", that gives out an "okay" to continue treating "Hernandez" like a foreign name and that it's ok to make fun of it. If it becomes accepted to make fun of people with the name Hernandez, it's not too far a stretch to say it's okay to treat people with the name Hernandez differently.



> Like I said, I think it's the number of syllables. Beats and other components of comedic timing can make or break a joke. "McClements" to me would have been as funny as "Hernandez".


Except that there's sort of a history in making fun of Hispanic names in the USA (as my friends and I can personally tell you!). This didn't occur in a vacuum; you have to look at this example in context. Even if this name was chosen totally innocently, it does not change the effect it has on the people watching it.



> But just because people called "Hernandez" have been discriminated on because of their names, it doesn't mean that they can demand that they're name never be used in jokes.


It's common courtesy. When Hernandez becomes as accepted a name as "McClements" or "Jones" or "O'Leiry", it will be okay to joke about it because making fun of that name won't serve to disempower people. However, as long as people are treating people named "Hernandez" differently on the basis of their name, then making fun of the name is not okay.



> Prove it's not.





> bla bla bla name drop


Well, you mentioned TV Tropes, so...
Here you go.
It's not exactly a secret.

Even if the black guy (and other minorities) doesn't die first anymore, they're less likely to stay alive to the end of the film.

Also, if you believe that it's a coincidence that black characters are much more likely to die first than white characters you are incredibly naive. It's not coincidence if it happens over and over and over again.

And of course, this is just one trope involving minorities. How about the Indian guy who is always a nerd (oh hey Phineas and Ferb and a bunch of other modern shows I can't remember), the Asian guy who is always an IT worker, the Hispanic guy doing menial work, the Magical Negro... and these are just the ones I'm aware of. 



> Right, so what you're saying is that you and your friends don't find Hernandez to be a funny name. That's good for you. Some people might find the name funny, in much the same way I find the name "Prenderville" funny. How does this impact on whether or not one can use the name in a joke about a delivery guy who can't pluralise the surname of his clients?


There's a reason they chose "Hernandez" and not "Jingleheimerschmidt" or "Prenderville" and it's because in the USA there is a history of Hispanic people having "funny" names _and then being treated differently because of that_. Remember that there's a big racial context behind all this.



> I understand why he's objecting. I think his reasons are a load of shit and he's putting his heritage on top of an unassailable pedestal, above all others.


If he's being othered and treated poorly and made fun of because of his heritage, I see no problem with him perhaps wanting people not to make fun of his name. I can tell you that Hispanics aren't exactly the most loved group in the USA and having your heritage being made fun of doesn't exactly make living with that prejudice on you any easier.



> it doesn't promote racial equality to say that jokes can't be made involving said races or names.


Making jokes that disempower people don't promote racial equality either. I'd say making it acceptable to make fun of Hispanic names doesn't promote racial equality. If the Hernandez family had shown up without their name being ridiculously mangled (seriously, the Hernandezes. Not so hard), that would have been a step towards racial equality.



> I'm not saying that the black guy dying first wasn't a frequent event in older films but it's been getting increasingly uncommon since the 90s to the point that most instances of it in modern film are either parodies or subversions.


So you admit that I'm not pulling stuff out of my ass when remarking on the black guy dies first thing?
If it's not common today, that's a good thing (though if the horror movies my dad brought home the other day are an indicator of anything, they still never make it to the end of the movie). Look to my earlier paragraph for examples of how minorities are still (god forbid) not on the same footing as white US Americans.



> God forbid anyone should find an ethnic name funny.


When finding that name funny is coupled with treating them badly or making fun of them, yeah, there's a big fucking problem there.



> Right, because some people claim that a minority gets a promotion for being a minority when they didn't, it means that minorities are never given preferential treatment just for being minorities. Makes perfect sense.


They're not "never" given preferential treatment; it's just pretty rare compared to them being given a promotion on their own merits. Unless you mean to imply that minorities can't get promotions without any sort of preferential treatment, which is pretty offensive.


----------



## #1 bro (Feb 21, 2010)

re: Dannichu's long post

this is very true and insightful and i definitely agree that it's a problem but you're not going to rush into the studio of a movie and sue them or something for making the black guy die first. the whole symptom and disease thing, you know

also jesus fucking christ. hernandez is funny because it's (as much as i hate to link to tv tropes) inherently funny word. "funny" might not even be the right term, as it's not like if i read "john hernandez" somewhere i think to my self "haha, 'hernandez' that's pretty hilarious". maybe it's the z at the end, maybe it's the fact that the emphasis on the second syllable sort of gives it a bounce, but it works better as a punchline. for an example of a white dude name that i would say has the same effect is "fitzgerald"

edit: also for the same of the joke hernandez works better because it ends in "es" and not just an s. i take back what i said about hernandez being funnier - this is definitely the reason why they used hernandez and not jones and now that i realize this i can say that there is pretty clearly no racist intent here.


----------



## opaltiger (Feb 21, 2010)

> i can say that there is pretty clearly no racist intent here.


Let me say something generally. Intent is not the same thing as reception; just because someone intends no offence does not mean people will not be offended. Just because there is no racist intent does not mean it is not racist. You have to realise that people interpret what they see not as the creator does and wants them to, but as they do. That is important; if enough people interpret something in a racist way, the damage has been done. It doesn't matter what the creator intended.


----------



## Adriane (Feb 21, 2010)

Plenty of people can take offence to the fact that you find a surname funny.


----------



## Aisling (Feb 21, 2010)

... said:


> Try finding a black US American that doesn't know what nigger means.


Totally probably not really quite related to this argument, but the fact they call _eachother_ "nigger", often in a not-so-derogatory way, probably has something to do with that. And that kind of brings up the point that a race can use a racial slur for them amongst eachother, but someone of another race can't, apparently.


Sure, people can find things offensive. Whether or not the person's being offended is _their_ problem or something that actually needs to be corrected is another thing entirely.

Some people just look for things to be angry about and choose to interpret things negatively even if a perfectly reasonable, not-offensive possibility is presented to them (in this case, _the guy's inability to pronounce the name_ is the joke, not the name itself). I think that's the case here.


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ (Feb 21, 2010)

Black people calling each other nigger is another can of worms but I think it's kind of the same thing with gay people using 'fag' :v

It's trying to, I don't know, get the word back, try to give it a less negative connotation. Black people calling each other nigger is kind of moot and even puts them on a sort of equal standpoint, while a white person using it (especially when they aren't friends with the person it's directed at) has all the baggage of white slave-owners.

Mainly, what matters is the intent. Plenty of people call me fag and I call plenty of people fag because we know it's all in good fun. If it's said malevolently, any word can become hurtful.


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax (Feb 21, 2010)

... said:


> What part of "things happen in context" do you not understand? US Americans  make fun of Hispanic names all the time. Even if they're not aware that a Hispanic person is there. Even if they don't consider themselves racist and would never think of discriminating against someone on the basis of their name.


So correct me if I'm reading this wrong. What you're saying is that because there are people who are racist towards Hispanic people, that instantaneously means we should never involve a Hispanic name in a joke. In much the same way that in older, more racist decades, people were racist against black people, so black people were never allowed on TV shows.



... said:


> I never said white US Americans are intentionally racist. Also, I live here. I hear all the snide comments made by white US Americans about how funny Hispanic names are, the comments about how stupid it is that they should have to speak Spanish for a job in *surprise* an area with predominantly Spanish speaking people, how Hispanics "get all the jobs because they speak Spanish". I _live_ this.


Right, so white US Americans make fun of Hispanic names, complain about needing Spanish to get a job in a predominantly Spanish-speaking area and how Hispanics get all the jobs because they speak Spanish anyway.

So it's fair to say that Hispanics get the short end of the stick in everyday life in America.

But that doesn't give them a free pass to say "you can't use our names in jokes". Racial equality is about harmony between peoples, how can you achieve that when you're trying to balance some imaginary scales? "People are racist towards me, so no one can use my name in a joke." That just throws up more divisive walls between people, it doesn't help solve the problem of racism.

Also, if you _live_ this, isn't it possible that perhaps you might not have the best clarity on the issue? Someone caught in the eye of the storm can't really tell you how strong the storm was or how much damaged it caused. All they can give you is personal opinion.



... said:


> Equality does not mean symmetry. The racial slur "nigger" has had centuries of bad connotations. Racial slurs against white people do not have that same history. They don't have the same emotional or sociological impact as "nigger". "Nigger" has been used to oppress, whereas "cracker" and "honky" are used by the oppressed group as a sort of backlash.  There are white US Americans that have never heard of the terms "cracker" and "honky". Try finding a black US American that doesn't know what nigger means.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying that "cracker" and "honky" can't be hurtful words; I think racial slurs referring to anybody are absolutely horrible. However, there is no denying that some words hurt more than other and "nigger" is one of those extremely hurtful words.


Like I said, racial equality is about harmony between peoples. Grudge-bearing does not promote harmony. I don't care whether it was hundreds of years of oppression or a chicken that was stolen three generations ago. To achieve harmony, you have to move beyond old wounds.



... said:


> If your race is the one in power and it's oppressing another race, then that can be called racism. I'm saying that in this commercial, the usage of the name "Hernandez" served as a free pass for making fun of the name Hernandez.


And if you avoided using the name "Hernandez" completely, it would serve as a free pass for treating people called "Hernandez" differently anyway.



... said:


> Because when you continue to joke about the name "Hernandez", that gives out an "okay" to continue treating "Hernandez" like a foreign name and that it's ok to make fun of it. If it becomes accepted to make fun of people with the name Hernandez, it's not too far a stretch to say it's okay to treat people with the name Hernandez differently.


By the same logic, if you never joke about the name "Hernandez", then it gives out the feeling that the name "Hernandez" is different from other names. If it never becomes accepted to make fun of the name Hernandez, it's not too far a stretch to say it's okay to treat people with the name Hernandez differently, since other names can be mocked just fine.



... said:


> Except that there's sort of a history in making fun of Hispanic names in the USA (as my friends and I can personally tell you!). This didn't occur in a vacuum; you have to look at this example in context. Even if this name was chosen totally innocently, it does not change the effect it has on the people watching it.


So it doesn't matter why they picked it, what intent they had with it, it's just _never okay_ to use the name "Hernandez" in a joke? What kind of effect would that have on people? If you treat "Hernandez" as an untouchable name, by the logic you keep using, people will treat people called "Hernandez" differently. If the intent with which a name is in included doesn't matter, then, by the same token, the intent with which a name is excluded doesn't matter either, it's still going to have the same effect.



... said:


> It's common courtesy. When Hernandez becomes as accepted a name as "McClements" or "Jones" or "O'Leiry", it will be okay to joke about it because making fun of that name won't serve to disempower people. However, as long as people are treating people named "Hernandez" differently on the basis of their name, then making fun of the name is not okay.


How is "Hernandez" _ever_ going to be treated the same way as "McClements" or "Jones" or "O'Leiry" if you don't treat it the same way that you treat those names? If people are treating people name "Hernandez" differently on the basis of their name, then treating the name "Hernandez" differently is only going to reaffirm their racism, not fight it. They'll see it as a justification of their beliefs, whatever the intent of treating "Hernandez" differently.



... said:


> Well, you mentioned TV Tropes, so... Here you go.
> It's not exactly a secret.


And in the context that I mentioned TVTropes, I said that they consider the "Black Dude Dies First" trope a Dead Horse Trope; a trope which only occurs as parody or subversion any more. The name come from the phrase "flogging a dead horse", which means "continuing to talk or argue about an issue after it has been resolved".



... said:


> Even if the black guy (and other minorities) doesn't die first anymore, they're less likely to stay alive to the end of the film.
> 
> Also, if you believe that it's a coincidence that black characters are much more likely to die first than white characters you are incredibly naive. It's not coincidence if it happens over and over and over again.


First of all, no I don't think it's coincidence. It obviously happened. _Happened_, past tense. And continuing to gripe about it doesn't help promote the harmony necessary to bring about racial equality.



... said:


> And of course, this is just one trope involving minorities. How about the Indian guy who is always a nerd (oh hey Phineas and Ferb and a bunch of other modern shows I can't remember), the Asian guy who is always an IT worker, the Hispanic guy doing menial work, the Magical Negro... and these are just the ones I'm aware of.


Yes, there are tropes about minorities that show up repeatedly, but they're showing up less an less. They're dying out by themselves. The PC crowd might think they're helping they dying process, but they're not, they're slowing it down. Every time a minority protests against the political-correctness of the Indian nerd, the Asian IT worker, the Hispanic labourer or, indeed, the Magical Negro, someone somewhere is going to say "look, they want their races treat differently. they think their races are too good for our jokes." I'm not agreeing with what they're saying, but we both know just how dumb the average bigot is. If that person wasn't already racist, they get pushed a little closer to being one. And if that person was already racist, it gives them what they see as justification for their beliefs. How does that help racial equality, exactly?



... said:


> There's a reason they chose "Hernandez" and not "Jingleheimerschmidt" or "Prenderville" and it's because in the USA there is a history of Hispanic people having "funny" names _and then being treated differently because of that_. Remember that there's a big racial context behind all this.


Or, they chose "Hernandez" because it's just one of those names that some people genuinely find difficult to pluralise, whereas "Prenderville" and even "Jingleheimerschmidt" are very simple. You can't assume anything about the reasons behind choosing the name. For all you know, a Hispanic guy called Hernandez wrote the ad because in the past he's seen people having trouble pluralising his name and thought it would be a funny joke at their expense.



... said:


> If he's being othered and treated poorly and made fun of because of his heritage, I see no problem with him perhaps wanting people not to make fun of his name. I can tell you that Hispanics aren't exactly the most loved group in the USA and having your heritage being made fun of doesn't exactly make living with that prejudice on you any easier.


_But they're not making fun of *anybody's* heritage._ If _anything_, it's people with speech impediments who should be complaining, after all, the joke is at the expense of the guy who can't pluralise "Hernandez". But they're not complaining because they understand that even for people without speech impediments, some names are hard to pronounce or pluralise. _They get the joke_



... said:


> Making jokes that disempower people don't promote racial equality either. I'd say making it acceptable to make fun of Hispanic names doesn't promote racial equality. If the Hernandez family had shown up without their name being ridiculously mangled (seriously, the Hernandezes. Not so hard), that would have been a step towards racial equality.


Actually, making it acceptable to make fun of Hispanic names is _exactly_ what promotes racial equality. You can't have equality if people are saying "you can't make fun of my name because of my race".

If the Hernandez family had shown up without their name being mangled, there wouldn't have been a joke. It's supposed to be a funny ad. With a joke in it.



... said:


> So you admit that I'm not pulling stuff out of my ass when remarking on the black guy dies first thing?


Actually, I was talking about Dannichu's "99% of [heroes are] a middle-class, able-bodied, cisgendered, young, straight, white male".



... said:


> If it's not common today, that's a good thing (though if the horror movies my dad brought home the other day are an indicator of anything, they still never make it to the end of the movie). Look to my earlier paragraph for examples of how minorities are still (god forbid) not on the same footing as white US Americans.


In fairness, not many people make it to the end of modern horror movies.

And like I keep saying, putting minorities to one side and saying "you can't joke about their names" isn't putting them on the same footing as white US Americans either.



... said:


> When finding that name funny is coupled with treating them badly or making fun of them, yeah, there's a big fucking problem there.


But it's not necessarily coupled. I find the name "Prenderville" funny but that doesn't mean I treat my neighbours badly or make fun of them. And Zeta Reticuli apparently finds the name funny, but he doesn't go around bullying Hispanics.



... said:


> They're not "never" given preferential treatment; it's just pretty rare compared to them being given a promotion on their own merits. Unless you mean to imply that minorities can't get promotions without any sort of preferential treatment, which is pretty offensive.


Explain how I could possibly be implying that.


----------



## Kratos Aurion (Feb 21, 2010)

opaltiger said:


> Let me say something generally. Intent is not the same thing as reception; just because someone intends no offence does not mean people will not be offended. Just because there is no racist intent does not mean it is not racist. You have to realise that people interpret what they see not as the creator does and wants them to, but as they do. That is important; if enough people interpret something in a racist way, the damage has been done. It doesn't matter what the creator intended.


Last year the major mass transit organization in my city decided to start referring to the different subway lines by color--Red Line, Green Line, Blue Line, etc.. The Northeast-South line is currently called the Yellow Line. But a week or two ago I read in the paper that there's this whole shitstorm being kicked up because the northeast terminus of the Yellow Line happens to be in a city with a very large Asian-American population, and the community there has taken offense (what with "yellow" being a derogatory term for people of Asian descent). They've taken it as an attack on their race, and the transit people, who insist that they didn't mean anything by it, are now having to phase in changes to the name "Gold Line" instead.

Do I think that the transit company intended the name as a racist slur? No, I think they just picked basic colors and that's where that one happened to fall. Do I think that community is overreacting? Yeah, a little. But it just goes to show that people who are used to being discriminated against _do_ see these things, and while I don't believe in coddling anyone it really doesn't hurt to be mindful of how your totally innocent decision could be received.


----------



## #1 bro (Feb 21, 2010)

opaltiger said:


> Let me say something generally. Intent is not the same thing as reception; just because someone intends no offence does not mean people will not be offended. Just because there is no racist intent does not mean it is not racist. You have to realise that people interpret what they see not as the creator does and wants them to, but as they do. That is important; if enough people interpret something in a racist way, the damage has been done. It doesn't matter what the creator intended.


i disagree. 

i mean, take this ad. okay, we can all see the mistake here. the logic of whoever made it was "check it out, it's like you have an army of sprinters ready to do your work for you!", which i guess is a pretty good way to market your computers. of course, the alternate interpretation is that it's showing a white guy who commands an army of slaves, which of course would probably be the most fucking racist thing ever. i think we can all agree that there wasn't any racist intent here, right?

do you honestly think that the "damage" would be equal if it was somehow clear via a subtitle or something that the person making it had honestly intended to represent a white person and his army of slaves? of course not. every black person and almost every white person would be up in arms at the ridiculous amount of racism expressed in the ad. as it is now though, it's just kind of humorous to laugh at the blunder intel made. the intent definitely matters. if no one is being racist then what is there to be offended by?


----------



## Shiny Grimer (Feb 22, 2010)

> Also, if you live this, isn't it possible that perhaps you might not have the best clarity on the issue? Someone caught in the eye of the storm can't really tell you how strong the storm was or how much damaged it caused. All they can give you is personal opinion.


Are you serious?

I'm sorry but I'm not going to bother talking about this anymore. Excuse my tight asshole.



> But it just goes to show that people who are used to being discriminated against do see these things, and while I don't believe in coddling anyone it really doesn't hurt to be mindful of how your totally innocent decision could be received.


This.


----------



## Dannichu (Feb 22, 2010)

Apologies if this is a double-post, but my previous comment didn't seem to be showing up.

Also, ... postninja'd me, but her response pretty much highlights the offensiveness of your comment (offensiveness which I don't think you intended, but like so much else in this thread, it was offensive _whether you intended it to be or not_).



Teh Ebil Snorlax said:


> Also, if you _live_ this, isn't it possible that perhaps you might not have the best clarity on the issue? Someone caught in the eye of the storm can't really tell you how strong the storm was or how much damaged it caused. All they can give you is personal opinion.


It's late and I have an early start, so I'm not going to reply to all your post (I'll try and do so tomorrow unless someone beats me to it), but I have to respond to this.

It's precisely _because_ someone lives this kind of discrimination every day that they're the _perfect_ person to say whether or not it's damaging and hurtful. 

You're not Hispanic, and as such you have absolutely _no_ idea what it's like to live as a Hispanic person in the US (nor can you ever), and you have no idea of what it's like to have to put up with all kinds of racism that go along with that, from blatant name-calling and discrimination, to people coming up to you while you're trying to do your shopping and asking you where things are because they assume you're an employee, to people thinking your name is "funny-sounding". 

Who, if not the people who are going to be damaged by offensive statements, should be the ones to say how much damage was caused? 

"All they can give you is personal opinion" - people's opinion is _all that matters_. Issues surrounding race, dis/ability, sex, gender and so on aren't quantative statistics that you can make graphs out of - they're important aspects of people's lives, and you can't reduce that down to "Use of the word "nigger" is 76% offensive." or "You're 58% politically incorrect if you talk to the person pushing the wheelchair and completely disregard the person sitting in it".

So, how about when someone does say "hey, this is kinda hurtful", you don't assume (from your position as someone who can have no idea what it's like to be a racial minority) that they're making stuff up to be offended about? 

Moreover, what on earth gives you the right to decide what Hispanic people should and shouldn't get offended by?

I have a suggestion for you: Walk a mile in someone else's shoes. Or, put another way, shut up and listen to someone's life experiences that are a little different from yours and maybe you'll learn something.


----------



## Colton O'Weekly (Feb 22, 2010)

Next thing you know, we'll lose freedom of speech. 

I can't stand political correctness. I mean, it's a joke more of just hard-to-pronounce names. I haven't heard any of the Mexicans I know complain about it - they LIKE the Orbitz comercials. 

The people who think this is "racist" just want to sue Orbitz to get money, or they want attention if you ask me.


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax (Feb 22, 2010)

Dannichu said:


> It's late and I have an early start, so I'm not going to reply to all your post (I'll try and do so tomorrow unless someone beats me to it), but I have to respond to this.
> 
> It's precisely _because_ someone lives this kind of discrimination every day that they're the _perfect_ person to say whether or not it's damaging and hurtful.


So she gets discriminated against, it means that her personal opinion gets codified as the definitive text on the emotional and sociological effects of a guy in an Orbitz ad having trouble pluralising a Hispanic name? It means her opinion on whether or not it's okay to involve the name "Hernandez" in a joke at the expense of a guy who can't pluralise the name "Hernandez" is automatically the correct one?



Dannichu said:


> You're not Hispanic, and as such you have absolutely _no_ idea what it's like to live as a Hispanic person in the US (nor can you ever), and you have no idea of what it's like to have to put up with all kinds of racism that go along with that, from blatant name-calling and discrimination, to people coming up to you while you're trying to do your shopping and asking you where things are because they assume you're an employee, to people thinking your name is "funny-sounding".
> 
> Who, if not the people who are going to be damaged by offensive statements, should be the ones to say how much damage was caused?


How about an unbiased third party who compiles the personal opinions of others and analyses them? A psychiatrist, a sociologist? Someone who's opinion of the matter isn't clouded by the years of emotional damage done?



Dannichu said:


> "All they can give you is personal opinion" - people's opinion is _all that matters_. Issues surrounding race, dis/ability, sex, gender and so on aren't quantative statistics that you can make graphs out of - they're important aspects of people's lives, and you can't reduce that down to "Use of the word "nigger" is 76% offensive." or "You're 58% politically incorrect if you talk to the person pushing the wheelchair and completely disregard the person sitting in it".
> 
> So, how about when someone does say "hey, this is kinda hurtful", you don't assume (from your position as someone who can have no idea what it's like to be a racial minority) that they're making stuff up to be offended about?


Personal opinion on its own is unreliable. The persecuted demonise the persecutor. They're a biased source. And I never said that they were making stuff up to be offended about.



Dannichu said:


> Moreover, what on earth gives you the right to decide what Hispanic people should and shouldn't get offended by?


I never said I had the right to decide anything for people. And just to make sure, I read over all my posts again. Because that sure doesn't sound like anything I would say. All I said, as someone who's opinion on the matter hasn't been biased by emotional baggage, is that the joke wasn't at the expense of Hispanic people, it was at the expense of the delivery guy and I don't see why Hispanic people should be offended. Clearly they are. But I don't see any reason.



Dannichu said:


> I have a suggestion for you: Walk a mile in someone else's shoes. Or, put another way, shut up and listen to someone's life experiences that are a little different from yours and maybe you'll learn something.


I get bullied and excluded and discriminated against for being fat, I have all my life. When I was younger, I had my face stamped on until I went unconscious, because I was the fat kid. Last year, a guy threw a rock at my face that would have blinded me if it had hit an inch and a half lower. Then a couple of weeks later, the guy's brother attacked me on the way home. I always get picked last in P.E., even after the girl who's muscles are so underdeveloped that she can't even effectively bitchslap someone. Because I'm Dean, the fat kid. My parents have been neglecting me emotionally and constantly playing favourites with my sisters for years, to the extent that I have owned _exactly_ four pairs of jeans for the past six years and my sisters go clothes-shopping _at least_ once a month. Because I'm the fat child. One day, on the way home from school, I got attacked, beaten to a pulp and hit over the head with a hurley. Then the people who did it left me unconscious behind a bush. I wasn't found for six hours. Six hours, just left there in the dirt. Brusied, swollen, bleeding, concussed. Because I'm Dean, the fat kid. From the ages of 8-12, everyday, I went to school, I was mocked, physically, verbally and, on one occasion, sexually abused, I went home, got ignored by my parents, went to my room and spent all the time between arriving home and going downstairs for dinner thinking about killing myself. Then after dinner, I'd go back up to my room and think about killing myself until I cried myself to sleep. Because I'm Dean, the fucking fat kid. But if I saw an ad where a fat guy gets stuck in a doorway, or where a fat guy asks a girl out and the girl laughs in his face, or where the fat guy who can't even walk properly he's so fat falls flat on his face trying to do excercise, I wouldn't get offended. I'd laugh at the joke; because that's all it is.

People should be able to laugh at a joke about fat people without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about thin people without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about gay people without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about straight people without being called discrininatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about women without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about men without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about intersex people without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about disabled people without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about people with speech impediments without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about atheists without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about theists without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about Jews without being called discriminatory for it.
People should be able to laugh at a joke about Christians without being called discriminatory for it.
[.......]
People should be able to laught at a joke about anyone without being called discriminatory for it.

I care more about personal liberty than I care about all the shit that has happened to me because of my weight and appearance. I care more about equality than I care about my emotional baggage. When you say that it is not okay to laugh at the name "Hernandez" or that you can't have some guy in an ad have difficulty pronouncing it, that's being discriminatory.


----------



## Adriane (Feb 22, 2010)

Teh Ebil Snorlax said:


> People should be able to laugh at a joke about single parents without being called discriminatory for it.


That is not funny ever, in any context.


----------



## Espeon (Feb 22, 2010)

Teh Ebil Snorlax said:


> People should be able to laugh at a joke about fat people without being called discriminatory for it.
> People should be able to laugh at a joke about thin people without being called discriminatory for it.
> People should be able to laugh at a joke about gay people without being called discriminatory for it.
> People should be able to laugh at a joke about straight people without being called discrininatory for it.
> ...


It's difficult to be able to joke and laugh at such things when there will always be people who will have the intention of being discriminatory. Such people tend to hide behind the guise of "oh, it was only joke", and as such, it will always be difficult to distinguish between joke and insult unless you're having fun with close, personal friends.


----------



## Zhorken (Feb 22, 2010)

Teh Ebil Snorlax said:
			
		

> I care more about personal liberty


Liberty: sure, you can make fun of people.  People can call you out on it!  Nobody's tying you down by telling you not to make annoying jokes about minorities.


----------



## opaltiger (Feb 22, 2010)

> People should be able to laught at a joke about anyone without being called discriminatory for it.


Of course people _should_ be able to. But they can't, because discrimination exists. You seem to assume we live in a world where everyone is equal and it is understood that any view to the contrary is a joke or otherwise not serious. This simply isn't true.


----------



## Tarvos (Feb 22, 2010)

which means we should eradicate discrimination which is not done by being all pussy when someone cracks a joke


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax (Feb 22, 2010)

Vixie said:


> That is not funny ever, in any context.


I have to disgree, I just got a few chuckles here.



Espeon said:


> It's difficult to be able to joke and laugh at such things when there will always be people who will have the intention of being discriminatory. Such people tend to hide behind the guise of "oh, it was only joke", and as such, it will always be difficult to distinguish between joke and insult unless you're having fun with close, personal friends.


I totally agree but that doesn't mean we should assume insult every time someone cracks an ethnic joke.



opaltiger said:


> Of course people _should_ be able to. But they can't, because discrimination exists. You seem to assume we live in a world where everyone is equal and it is understood that any view to the contrary is a joke or otherwise not serious. This simply isn't true.


I don't assume we live in a world where everyone is equal and it is understood that any view to the contrary is a joke or otherwise not serious. I know that it's not true. But it never will be if people keep saying that their names are off-limit because of their race.


----------



## Tarvos (Feb 22, 2010)

Vixie said:


> That is not funny ever, in any context.


it is now that you've reacted like that ;)


----------



## Adriane (Feb 23, 2010)

It's funny the same way rape is funny.

(it's really not)


----------



## Dannichu (Feb 23, 2010)

Colton O'Weekly said:


> Next thing you know, we'll lose freedom of speech.


This ties in very much with a comment above and its list of minorites we should be able to make jokes about, and Zhorken already said it right - _nobody_ is out to say you _can't_ make jokes about minorities. However -and this is very important, so listen carefully because you don't seem to be getting it - if you do so, you should be expected to be called out on it. 
You say something idiotic that makes you sound like an ass ("Hispanic names are funny!" "Minorites don't know what's offensive to minorities!"), people will (or at least they _should_) say "Hey, you're making idiotic statements and being an ass!" 



Teh Ebil Snorlax said:


> How about an unbiased third party who compiles the personal opinions of others and analyses them? A psychiatrist, a *sociologist*? Someone who's opinion of the matter isn't clouded by the years of emotional damage done?


Funny you should say this. I'm a white person who has never suffered any kind of racism and am currently writing a 20,000-word dissertation on racism in the media (specifically in the print media immediately following Hurricane Katrina, but obviously I've done a lot of reading around the subject) for my degree in sociology. I'm telling you that making fun of a Hispanic name can be both hurtful and damaging and _why aren't you getting this?_



> Personal opinion on its own is unreliable.


Okay, wrong again. I'm going to assume you've never had a lesson in sociology in your life (if so, please find yourself a new teacher). Given you cited a sociologist as a person who can objectively look at examples of alleged racism, I'm going to assume you see sociology as an adequate tool with which to examine society? 

Despite its status as a social science, sociology is far from what I imagine most people on these forums would call "science". Sociologists practice hundreds of different forms of research methods when gathering data, all with their own strengths and weaknesses, but do you know the methods that are most respected by experts at British universities? Focus groups. Getting a group of people in a target population (in this case, a group of minorities) and asking them open questions about their experiences and emotions, or as the article I linked you to puts it, "a group of individuals selected and assembled by researchers to discuss and comment on, *from personal experience*, the topic that is the subject of the research"

You know what else is a valuable research tool in sociology and is by far the  most used and respected method of gaining knowledge in the field of social anthropology (the study of cultures outside our own - very relevant here)? Ethnographies. Ethnographies focus entirely on purely qualitative research; sitting back, observing other cultures and asking "why?". An ethnography is almost always written in the first-person, and if the researcher has any strong personal feelings while conducting their research, they write them down. This is one person writing entirely about their own experiences, and it's an invaluable tool in regards to understanding both how our society functions, and how we should understand others. 



> is that the joke wasn't at the expense of Hispanic people, it was at the expense of the delivery guy and I don't see why Hispanic people should be offended. Clearly they are. But I don't see any reason.


The joke might not have been aimed at Hispanic people, but Hispanic people could still find it offensive. And as for "I don't see any reason", ...'s outlined a whole mass of reasons why turning a "funny-sounding, hard-to-say" Hispanic name into a punchline is offensive; Hispanic people are denied jobs because they have such names. They are asked by their employers to change their names. They're discriminated against by society on the basis of their names. Pick whichever reason you like most.




> But if I saw an ad where a fat guy gets stuck in a doorway, or where a fat guy asks a girl out and the girl laughs in his face, or where the fat guy who can't even walk properly he's so fat falls flat on his face trying to do excercise, I wouldn't get offended. I'd laugh at the joke; because that's all it is.


Your inability to get that this is _not_ "all this is" is why we're having so much trouble here. A joke, as with everything else, does not exist on its own. It exists within a society that hates, as you've experienced first-hand, fat people. Laughing at a joke in which the fat kid is the punchline is, whether you like it or not, the same as laughing _at_ the fat kid. Stonewall's done a whole ton of research on usage of the word "gay" as a derogatory term. Describing negative things as "gay" is politically incorrect, but also has a huge impact on LGBT kids, especially when teachers and other authority figures use it, and when one considers that half of kids who have suffered homophobic bullying have contemplated suicide, and gay kids are four times more likely to attempt suicide, it shows that people need to think more about what they say and the effect it might have on other people because it's often more than "just a word" or "just a joke".



> When you say that it is not okay to laugh at the name "Hernandez" or that you can't have some guy in an ad have difficulty pronouncing it, that's being discriminatory.


Okay, one quick look at Wikipedia following a search for "racial discrimination" and I get the following (academically cited) _sociological_ (I'm arguing a case for the sociological impact of laughing at "racist" jokes, so I'm going to use sociological sources) definitions:



			
				David Wellman said:
			
		

> "culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities”.





			
				Cazenave and Maddern said:
			
		

> “...a highly organized system of 'race'-based group privilege that operates at every level of society and is held together by a sophisticated ideology of color/'race' supremacy


Racial discrimination is a form of racism that is _socially reinforced_. I'll admit that you can be unfair to white people and treat them unequally, but you _cannot_ be racist towards them because anti-white sentiments do not exist at every level of society and white people are not and never have been subordinated within society. 



Watershed said:


> which means we should eradicate discrimination which is not done by being all pussy when someone cracks a joke


Following the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, thousands of people who had lost their homes and/or families took refuge in the New Orleans Astrodome, and in reference to this, a highly amusing email was circulated asking "And then God had all those [black people] in one place and doesn't take a second hit?". 
Hilarious, no?



> I totally agree but that doesn't mean we should assume insult every time someone cracks an ethnic joke.


Nobody is assuming insult. People take offense if the joke is offensive. Minorities don't look for things to get offended about. I'll redirect you here and ask that you read "feminism" as "forces for racial equality" and "sexism" for "racism" because it's pretty much exactly the same argument.


----------



## 1. Luftballon (Feb 23, 2010)

Vixie said:


> It's funny the same way rape is funny.
> 
> (it's really not)


it's funny the same way anything someone says isn't funny without backing up their statement is. it isn't finding it funny in and of itself; it's _you_ that's making it funny.


----------



## Dannichu (Feb 23, 2010)

sreservoir said:


> it's funny the same way anything someone says isn't funny without backing up their statement is. it isn't finding it funny in and of itself; it's _you_ that's making it funny.


Wait. The unfunniness of rape _requires_ an explanation?


----------



## #1 bro (Feb 23, 2010)

jokes about rape are sometimes pretty funny whether you want them to be or not.

edit: dannichu just to clarify do you think this ad is racist and should have been censored?


----------



## Zhorken (Feb 23, 2010)

As far as I can tell, the ad wasn't censored; Orbitz decided themselves to rerecord it.

EDIT: I don't see anything particularly bad about the original, either, but if actual Hernandezes say it's irritating and that they'd like it to stop, then, y'know, maybe they have a point.  Nothing wrong with not poking fun at people when they ask you not to, whether or not you were poking maliciously.


----------



## Butterfree (Feb 23, 2010)

I don't think this ad sounds very racist from how it's been described in this thread (I haven't actually watched it, since I tend to be in public places when I view this thread where I can't really watch videos) and would generally be inclined to think that, as pointed out before, it seems to be making fun of delivery boys who can't pluralize names, not of the actual name; I don't think it would ever occur to me to be offended or to consider it to be making fun of the name even if it were my name. I can't help feeling kind of torn between, on the one hand, my personal feeling that there is no need for anyone to take offense to that, and on the other hand, the fact offensive things are obviously not magically okay just because I don't find them offensive.

Thing is, there's a continuum here; there definitely are things that it makes no sense for people to be offended over. To me, that includes this ad and the "Yellow Line", but even assuming that's just my inability to understand it, we can move further along the continuum and eventually we'll come to things you will all agree are just not offensive and to take them that way is an overreaction. Is Pokémon Yellow Version racist? Yellow crayons? Is there actually some fundamental quality the "Yellow Line" has that they don't that makes it offensive and not them? What if somebody did come along and claim to be offended by them? Is there no point at which you'd decide that, well, they're entitled to be offended by it, but they're just no longer entitled to have the world go out of its way not to offend them?

So in summary: I personally don't get why this is supposedly offensive, but eh, people who actually do have that name and live in that society can judge it much better than I can. On the other hand, I have to disagree with the statement that there is no such thing as political correctness gone too far. :/ You can always go too far.


----------



## Tarvos (Feb 23, 2010)

> Following the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, thousands of people who had lost their homes and/or families took refuge in the New Orleans Astrodome, and in reference to this, a highly amusing email was circulated asking "And then God had all those [black people] in one place and doesn't take a second hit?".
> Hilarious, no?


yes it's quite funny because New Orleans is God Central


----------



## 1. Luftballon (Feb 23, 2010)

Dannichu said:


> Wait. The unfunniness of rape _requires_ an explanation?


rape? not particularly funny. vixie just saying it isn't funny? that is funny, and it does need an explanation. if it's so obvious it doesn't need an explanation, it probably doesn't need to be called out on either. (exceptions exist, but they're kind of rare and usually it has to do with cultural differences and such.)


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax (Feb 23, 2010)

Dannichu said:


> This ties in very much with a comment above and its list of minorites we should be able to make jokes about, and Zhorken already said it right - _nobody_ is out to say you _can't_ make jokes about minorities. However -and this is very important, so listen carefully because you don't seem to be getting it - if you do so, you should be expected to be called out on it.


I think Colton's point was that we should have the freedom to make jokes without being called discriminatory or being harassed.



Dannichu said:


> You say something idiotic that makes you sound like an ass ("Hispanic names are funny!" "Minorites don't know what's offensive to minorities!"), people will (or at least they _should_) say "Hey, you're making idiotic statements and being an ass!"


Of course they should say that. Of course _nobody is saying any of those assishness-implying things in the first place, so what you're saying is totally irrelevant._



Dannichu said:


> Funny you should say this. I'm a white person who has never suffered any kind of racism and am currently writing a 20,000-word dissertation on racism in the media (specifically in the print media immediately following Hurricane Katrina, but obviously I've done a lot of reading around the subject) for my degree in sociology. I'm telling you that making fun of a Hispanic name can be both hurtful and damaging and _why aren't you getting this?_


You have a lot of cheek accusing me of not getting something. You actually *quote* the part of post where I explicitly state that _clearly, the joke was offensive._ Here it is again, since you obviously missed it;



			
				me said:
			
		

> I don't see why Hispanic people should be offended. *Clearly they are.* But I don't see any reason.





Dannichu said:


> Okay, wrong again. I'm going to assume you've never had a lesson in sociology in your life (if so, please find yourself a new teacher). Given you cited a sociologist as a person who can objectively look at examples of alleged racism, I'm going to assume you see sociology as an adequate tool with which to examine society?
> 
> [Despite its status as a social science, sociology is far from what I imagine most people on these forums would call "science". Sociologists practice hundreds of different forms of research methods when gathering data, all with their own strengths and weaknesses, but do you know the methods that are most respected by experts at British universities? Focus groups. Getting a group of people in a target population (in this case, a group of minorities) and asking them open questions about their experiences and emotions, or as the article I linked you to puts it, "a group of individuals selected and assembled by researchers to discuss and comment on, *from personal experience*, the topic that is the subject of the research"
> 
> You know what else is a valuable research tool in sociology and is by far the  most used and respected method of gaining knowledge in the field of social anthropology (the study of cultures outside our own - very relevant here)? Ethnographies. Ethnographies focus entirely on purely qualitative research; sitting back, observing other cultures and asking "why?". An ethnography is almost always written in the first-person, and if the researcher has any strong personal feelings while conducting their research, they write them down. This is one person writing entirely about their own experiences, and it's an invaluable tool in regards to understanding both how our society functions, and how we should understand others.


That was a typo, I meant to write "Personal opinion *of the victimised* on its own is unreliable." Hence, also from of that paragraph, "The persecuted demonises the persecutor. They're a biased source."

Naturally, using focus groups for research works just fine; you get the total sum of opinions from Then an unbiased third party draws their own conclusions from what they have to see.

Ethnography similarly works the same way, it's an unbiased third party observing another culture and then drawing their own conclusions from that.

Also, even though it wasn't what I originally said (or at least, what I originally intended to convey), focus groups and ethnography wouldn't be the _only_ thing that a researcher uses. Any good researcher would use a wide variety of sources, from both those directly involved in the topic and from independent, unbiased sources who have observed or done their own research on the topic.



Dannichu said:


> The joke might not have been aimed at Hispanic people, but Hispanic people could still find it offensive. And as for "I don't see any reason", ...'s outlined a whole mass of reasons why turning a "funny-sounding, hard-to-say" Hispanic name into a punchline is offensive; Hispanic people are denied jobs because they have such names. They are asked by their employers to change their names. They're discriminated against by society on the basis of their names. Pick whichever reason you like most.


Again, you say that I don't see that the joke is offensive Hispanic people, while _quoting the exact line in which I say that I do._

And those are all very valid reasons to be mad at somebody making a joke about your name but they're not making the joke about the name. The way you and ... are talking, it seems like the fact that the name is Hispanic automatically attaches anything that is done with the name to the entire Hispanic community. What about this joke;



> Q: What do you call two Mexicans playing basketball? A: Juan-on-Juan


Or this one;



> Q: What did the Puerto Rican fireman name his son? A: Jose


Are these offensive? Am I perpetuating racism towards Hispanic people by making puns on these names? If a comedian gets on stage and tells these jokes, will three Argentinian immigrants get refused service in a shop the next day because of it?

What about this joke;



> Q: What do you call an Irishman who stays outdoors all summer and indoors all winter? A: Paddy O' Furniture


That's a play on stereotypical Irish nomenclature. If there was an ad on TV using that joke, would it increase the racism towards the Irish in America, especially those in Boston? I'm sure if Hispanic people don't get hired for having names like Sotomayor or Tajada or whatever, that there are Irish people who don't get hired for having names like O' Fhogartaigh. And what about Polish people? If there was an ad where someone had trouble pronouncing "Wójcik", would more of the Polish immigrants in America be denied jobs than normal? Will some employer see the ad then walk into a work a while later and demand his Polish employees change their names to simplify his life? If the name had used Adamicz (I went out with a girl with that surname, my first few attempts to pluralise it failed quite miserably) instead of Hernandez, would it cause more racism towards Polish people?



Dannichu said:


> Your inability to get that this is _not_ "all this is" is why we're having so much trouble here. A joke, as with everything else, does not exist on its own. It exists within a society that hates, as you've experienced first-hand, fat people. Laughing at a joke in which the fat kid is the punchline is, whether you like it or not, the same as laughing _at_ the fat kid.


So according to you, laughing at a joke in which mispronunciation of a name by some delivery is the same as laughing at the delivery guy.



Dannichu said:


> Stonewall's done a whole ton of research on usage of the word "gay" as a derogatory term. Describing negative things as "gay" is politically incorrect, but also has a huge impact on LGBT kids, especially when teachers and other authority figures use it, and when one considers that half of kids who have suffered homophobic bullying have contemplated suicide, and gay kids are four times more likely to attempt suicide, it shows that people need to think more about what they say and the effect it might have on other people because it's often more than "just a word" or "just a joke".


The problem as I see it is nothing to do with vacuums or racial context or whatever that you're equating mocking a guy who mispronounces a name as part of a joke and mocking a name as part of a joke. _That doesn't make sense._ By that logic, laughing at some mispronounce the word "aristocracy" is the same as laughing at the word "aristocracy". Or laughing at someone pluralising "barracks" as "barrackses" or even "barracks...es...es" is the same as openly mocking the word "barracks". What about mispronouncing Spanish in an ad? Is that an open attack on the Spanish language? If the delivery guy had announced his delivery in Spanish, should Hispanic people be offended if he pronounced "Aquí está su paquete" as "Akwee estah soo pakweet"?



Dannichu said:


> Okay, one quick look at Wikipedia following a search for "racial discrimination" and I get the following (academically cited) _sociological_ (I'm arguing a case for the sociological impact of laughing at "racist" jokes, so I'm going to use sociological sources) definitions:
> 
> Racial discrimination is a form of racism that is _socially reinforced_. I'll admit that you can be unfair to white people and treat them unequally, but you _cannot_ be racist towards them because anti-white sentiments do not exist at every level of society and white people are not and never have been subordinated within society.


So if a Hispanic guy goes into a shop owned by a white guy and applies for a job but doesn't get it because he's Hispanic, it's racial discrimination, but if a white guy goes into a shop owned by a Hispanic guy and applies for a job but doesn't get it because he's white, it's not? Racial discrimination only applies if it occurs in general, but not in single isolated events? There's no such thing as racial discrimination against white people because white people were never treated as second-class citizens?



Dannichu said:


> Following the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, thousands of people who had lost their homes and/or families took refuge in the New Orleans Astrodome, and in reference to this, a highly amusing email was circulated asking "And then God had all those [black people] in one place and doesn't take a second hit?".
> Hilarious, no?


I didn't laugh at that joke but mainly because it's a bad joke. I've laugh at better jokes about Katrina though. I heard some great ones about Haiti the other day.



Dannichu said:


> Nobody is assuming insult. People take offense if the joke is offensive. Minorities don't look for things to get offended about. I'll redirect you here and ask that you read "feminism" as "forces for racial equality" and "sexism" for "racism" because it's pretty much exactly the same argument.


In much the same way that you ignored me saying "The persecuted demonises the persecutor. They're a biased source", you also seem to have completely ignored me saying this;



			
				me said:
			
		

> I never said that they were making stuff up to be offended about.


EDIT: 





Vixie said:


> It's funny the same way rape is funny.
> 
> (it's really not)


I have to disagree. I compared some jokes about rape to the jokes about single parents I linked to above. The jokes about single parents were _way_ funnier.

Also, you're equating rape with single parenthood. That's quite odd.


----------



## Dannichu (Feb 28, 2010)

Butterfree said:
			
		

> Thing is, there's a continuum here; there definitely are things that it makes no sense for people to be offended over. To me, that includes this ad and the "Yellow Line", but even assuming that's just my inability to understand it, we can move further along the continuum and eventually we'll come to things you will all agree are just not offensive and to take them that way is an overreaction. Is Pokémon Yellow Version racist? Yellow crayons? Is there actually some fundamental quality the "Yellow Line" has that they don't that makes it offensive and not them?


Pokemon Yellow, as with the Yellow Line, isn't inherently racist in any way. It _becomes_ racist when it is applied to a group of people to whom "yellow" is a derogatory term. 



Teh Ebil Snorlax said:


> I don't assume we live in a world where everyone is equal and it is understood that any view to the contrary is a joke or otherwise not serious. I know that it's not true. But it never will be if people keep saying that their names are off-limit because of their race.


I totally missed this before. Are you implying that prejudice, racism, etc. exists because of the minority in question? Those black slaves probably wouldn't have shipped themselves off to work on the sugar plantations. Women don't actively seek to be raped by men. Gays don't ask to be beaten up, and I don't think it's any group asking for equality that's stopping them from, y'know, actually achieving it.

Jokes about groups of people aren't the same. A joke about a white person (I can't even think of a joke where the face someone is white is the punchline) wouldn't have the same impact as one about a racial minority because whites don't have a long history of oppression that, to an extent, still exists in the present day.



> I think Colton's point was that we should have the freedom to make jokes without being called discriminatory or being harassed.


You've said this before. I said:
"Nobody is out to say you can't make jokes about minorities. However -and this is very important, so listen carefully because you don't seem to be getting it - if you do so, you should be expected to be called out on it."

opal said:
Of course people _should_ be able to. But they can't, because discrimination exists. You seem to assume we live in a world where everyone is equal and it is understood that any view to the contrary is a joke or otherwise not serious. This simply isn't true.  

Zhorken said:
Liberty: sure, you can make fun of people. People can call you out on it! Nobody's tying you down by telling you not to make annoying jokes about minorities.  

Pick the response you like the best.



> That was a typo, I meant to write "Personal opinion of the victimised on its own is unreliable." Hence, also from of that paragraph, "The persecuted demonises the persecutor. They're a biased source."
> 
> Naturally, using focus groups for research works just fine; you get the total sum of opinions from Then an unbiased third party draws their own conclusions from what they have to see.


I'm confused here. Who, exactly, do you think a researcher investigating, hypothetically, what it's like to be a victim of discrimination, would have in their focus groups, if not victims of discrimination?
A group of women who have suffered domestic violence would all "demonise" their abusive partners. Would this invalidate the research? No. 

At least, unless the researcher decided while writing up their study, "these women might not have the best clarity on the issue. As individuals caught in the eye of the storm, they can't really tell me how strong the storm was or how much damaged it caused. I'll find someone else, who hasn't been affected by domestic violence, who can give me a better opinion on what it's like to be a victim of domestic violence."



> Again, you say that I don't see that the joke is offensive Hispanic people, while quoting the exact line in which I say that I do.


Apologies for not getting this; I just don't understand how you can say that, yes, it is offensive to a marginalised group within society and then keep defending its usage. 
Saying "I don't get why it's offensive; jokes like this are okay!" is one (rather short-sighted, self-centred) view, but "This is offensive; jokes like this are okay!" is... I'm not actually sure.



> And those are all very valid reasons to be mad at somebody making a joke about your name but they're not making the joke about the name. The way you and ... are talking, it seems like the fact that the name is Hispanic automatically attaches anything that is done with the name to the entire Hispanic community.


The intent of the joke is irrelevant; the punchline of the joke is a person unable to pronounce a Hispanic name. If the world was that which opal mentioned before, where everyone was equal, then the joke would be completely harmless and nonoffensive (as it would be if the guy in the ad couldn't pronounce "Joneses"), but it's not.

Again, if it were a perfect society, a slight on one Hispanic name wouldn't be a slight on the Hispanic community, but it's not. We've talked before about representation of minorities in the media, and representation of Hispanic people as a whole is very rare (telling the world, whether they mean to or not, that "Hispanics don't exist/matter!"), so a single Hispanic person on television suddenly becomes, say, 20% of all Hispanic representation, and shapes people around the world's views of Hispanic people. Yes, people should be intelligent enough to be able to separate one Hispanic person on TV from an entire race living out their lives, but that simply isn't true.



> So according to you, laughing at a joke in which mispronunciation of a name by some delivery is the same as laughing at the delivery guy.


Laughing at a joke in which the mispronunciation of a Hispanic name is the punchline is the same as laughing at Hispanic names.



> If a comedian gets on stage and tells these jokes, will three Argentinian immigrants get refused service in a shop the next day because of it? [...] If there was an ad where someone had trouble pronouncing "Wójcik", would more of the Polish immigrants in America be denied jobs than normal? Will some employer see the ad then walk into a work a while later and demand his Polish employees change their names to simplify his life? If the name had used Adamicz instead of Hernandez, would it cause more racism towards Polish people?


Obviously, a single incident of what may-or-may-not-be-racism isn't going to suddenly cause a surge mass unemployment among minorities overnight, your examples are ridiculous.
Racist jokes have an impact, even if it's hard to see when you're looking at a single, isolated example. Any single example will sound like an exaggeration or crying wolf when presented in the absence of anything else, particularly when the joke is not explicitly racist and it can be argued that anyone getting offended about it is simply "taking it the wrong way". But if you take that joke and add the weight of all other jokes that point out the "hilarity" of Hispanic names, and add on all the incidents of what could be racism that happen to Hispanic people on a daily basis and anybody should be able to see how the weight of all that could affect someone's life?



> By that logic, laughing at some mispronounce the word "aristocracy" is the same as laughing at the word "aristocracy". Or laughing at someone pluralising "barracks" as "barrackses" or even "barracks...es...es" is the same as openly mocking the word "barracks".


Highlighting the "strangeness" of words that have no sociological context have no sociological ramifications. 
The word "barracks" is sociologically neutral, so saying it wrongly would have no effect other than making you look a bit silly. The word "aristocracy" does have a lot of sociological weight, but mispronouncing it is not offensive in any way because the aristocracy have never suffered because their class and names are "foreign-sounding". The name "Hernandez", as mentioned above, when said on television, often becomes representative of Hispanics everywhere, and thus butchering its pronunciation in an attempt at a joke, affects many people.

No, I don't think I've addressed everything you've mentioned, but I've gotten a little bored with this discussion and have a whole host of other things I'd rather be doing. The lack of empathy for other people in this discussion is making me feel a little ill, and since you're clearly not going to change(/open) your mind, this exercise has grown, it seems to me, a little pointless. It's been fun, but pretty much everything in my above message is repetition of stuff I've said before, and I just can't be bothered anymore.


----------

